People join SoulCycle for all sorts of reasons: to enjoy a sense of community, improve physical fitness, and challenge themselves in a high-energy environment. They don’t usually join with the intention of setting legal precedent.
However, that’s exactly what happened to one SoulCycle participant. Her injury led to a significant New Jersey court decision regarding the enforceability of liability waivers in fitness centers.
What is SoulCycle?
SoulCycle is a fitness company that offers indoor cycling classes designed to provide a full-body workout. Participants use stationary bikes in a high-energy environment, often accompanied by music and led by motivational instructors. SoulCycle has become a popular fitness trend due to its emphasis on a strong community and mental wellness, alongside physical fitness.
SoulCycle has faced several high-profile legal challenges in the past, including lawsuits related to employment practices, wage disputes, and allegations of sexual harassment. The recent lawsuit involving Akansha Singh is particularly significant due to its focus on the safety of the equipment and the enforceability of liability waivers signed by participants.
According to a Vox report, SoulCycle’s work environment has been criticized for fostering exclusivity, favoritism, and toxic behavior. Legal issues have included allegations of sexual harassment, workplace discrimination, and potential violations of labor laws.
The incident giving rise to the lawsuit
The incident that led to the lawsuit occurred on September 9, 2017, when Akansha Singh attended a cycling class at SoulCycle’s Short Hills studio in Millburn, New Jersey. During the class, participants transitioned from the riding portion to the post-ride stretch portion, which involved unclipping their cycling shoes from the pedals while still seated on the bikes.
Singh faced difficulty unclipping her left shoe from the pedal. The instructor, Kylie Butler, advised her to remove her foot from the shoe and perform the stretch without it. Singh successfully completed the left leg stretch but encountered trouble again when attempting to unclip her right shoe. While leaning over to remove her right foot, Singh lost her balance and fell off the bike, resulting in significant injuries.
The lawsuit
Akansha filed a complaint against SoulCycle, Inc., and SoulCycle Short Hills, LLC, asserting claims for negligence, negligent spoliation of evidence, and fraudulent concealment of evidence. The complaint alleged that SoulCycle’s negligence in maintaining the safety of their equipment and providing proper instructions led to her fall and subsequent injuries.
The lawsuit also claimed that SoulCycle failed to preserve crucial evidence, including the bike and shoes involved in the incident and surveillance footage from the studio.
The trial court initially granted SoulCycle’s motion for summary judgment, citing the waivers Singh had signed in 2013 and 2017. These waivers purported to release SoulCycle from liability for any injuries sustained during classes.
However, on appeal, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed this decision.
SoulCycle isn’t the only fitness company to face legal trouble. Peloton, for instance, announced a recall of their treadmills after one child’s death and 70 injuries were reported.
The appellate court’s opinion
The appellate court began its opinion by discussing waivers, noting that waivers absolving a party from future wrongdoing are generally disfavored because they “violate the aims underlying our tort law: deterrence of careless behavior and compensation by the wrongdoer for injuries sustained by victims.” Consequently, such contracts are subject to “close judicial scrutiny.”
The appellate court then explained that the waivers in question were not enforceable because they did not unequivocally express Singh’s waiver of her right to sue for negligence.
The court noted that the waivers introduced the waiver language in the context of the inherent risks of indoor cycling but did not explicitly mention negligence. However, negligence does not constitute an inherent risk, so the plaintiff would have no reason to believe she was waiving her right to sue based on negligence.
Additionally, the waiver ambiguously stated that Singh was giving up her right to sue under certain circumstances, without defining those circumstances clearly.
As a result, the appellate court found that the waivers did not constitute a clear and voluntary relinquishment of Singh’s legal rights, and therefore, she was entitled to proceed with her claims against SoulCycle. The case was remanded for further proceedings to address the merits of Singh’s claims.
This ruling underscores the importance of clear and unequivocal language in liability waivers and highlights the courts’ role in scrutinizing such agreements to ensure they do not unfairly strip individuals of their legal rights.